Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Libertarianism, Anarchism, and Society with Voluntary Self Governance

Posts

If one looks at the rise of nation states in Europe, only the most centralized managed to rise. Nations that did not have central authority on a large (physical) scale (Burgundy, Italy, Holy Roman Empire/Germany) did not become major players along with France, Spain, and Britain in the age of exploration. These divided nations stats had trouble organizing a common defense against invading armies of more centralized states. Large areas of small, unorganized nation-states proved easy pray for large, well organized nations.

And lets not fall into the modern trap of claiming that society cannot collapse, Rome fell for numerous and complex reasons but it did fall. One century we had multi story chariot parking lots, and the next the people didn't know how to make bricks.

It fell, it was a bad time for Europe, but it didn't fall because of too much central government. It fell because of inneficiencies caused by wealth inequality.

It wasn't however a bad time for Europe in general. It was called the Dark Ages, because the nation that replaced the Roman Empire did not have writing. In terms of cruelty and ignorance they where no worse then Rome, which built its empire on slavery and provincal exploitation(colonialism). The ultimate for of coercion(to stay on topic). They did have democracy and Justice in the form of Folkmoots and Things, serfdom and Feudalism was something that belonged to the middle ages.

They also knew how to make bricks as the ruins of several structures from that age proves. It was concrete they didn't know how to make. As the recipe left to them by the Romans was wrong. The Romans used specific ash from volcanic beds near Naples which contain impurities that made their concrete work. When people tried to use the recipe without said ash, all they got was goo.

My understanding is that it was called the Dark Ages because the Renaissance Humanists who coined the term (Petrarch in particular) wanted to create the impression that they had rescued the world from ignorance.

I think it would be a serious mistake to chalk up the demise of the Western Roman Empire up to any one thing. Political decay arises through a myriad of means. Chalking it up to corruption or wealth inequality in particular seem a little weird to me, given that the Empire was always characterized by corruption and inequality. Was the whole thing unstable from the beginning?

My understanding is that it was called the Dark Ages because the Renaissance Humanists who coined the term (Petrarch in particular, who I think coined the term) wanted to create the impression that they had rescued the world from ignorance.

I think it would be a serious mistake to chalk up the demise of the Western Roman Empire up to any one thing. Political decay arises through a myriad of means. Chalking it up to corruption or wealth inequality seem a little weird to me, given that the Empire was always characterized by corruption and inequality.

Thats the original origin of the name. The Dark Ages designation we know today, is because there are few written records of that age.

The very use of The Dark Ages designation is being questioned these days though. Like people said, it was a "dark age" in European history, but it had little impact on the rest of the world. In the Arab peninsula, it was the Golden age of Islam, which carried on much of the scientific knowledge of the ancient world.

My understanding is that it was called the Dark Ages because the Renaissance Humanists who coined the term (Petrarch in particular) wanted to create the impression that they had rescued the world from ignorance.

I think it would be a serious mistake to chalk up the demise of the Western Roman Empire up to any one thing. Political decay arises through a myriad of means. Chalking it up to corruption or wealth inequality in particular seem a little weird to me, given that the Empire was always characterized by corruption and inequality. Was the whole thing unstable from the beginning?

It seems a little odd to characterise a polity that lasted something like 1600 years as "unstable from the beginning". The Roman empire was stable and prosperous (although not peaceful) for a very long time, particularly if you weren't involved in the politics of the capital. From the point of view of some dude in a provincial Italian city, Rome was eternal. Then after that, Constantinople was "eternal" for a lot of people for a pretty long time too.

And lets not fall into the modern trap of claiming that society cannot collapse, Rome fell for numerous and complex reasons but it did fall. One century we had multi story chariot parking lots, and the next the people didn't know how to make bricks.

It fell, it was a bad time for Europe, but it didn't fall because of too much central government. It fell because of inneficiencies caused by wealth inequality.

The problem of course is that the fall was so gradual that by the time it fell, the Byzantine Empire (which called itself Roman, but was more Greek than Roman) was up and running in a significant way. And the Byzantine Empire rose from when West and East Rome split up, and so it's less a fall and more a political development and a shift in the seat of power. (Well, mostly the power shifted to where the money was, but you get the idea)

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it

This means I don't need to read Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire now, right? It's always been on my back burner as something to get around to since it seemed vaguely relevant to the current situation of the US, but if you say Gibbon's been mostly superseded, I suppose that lets me off the hook...

It does seem like all of the old empires "collapsed" in that sense of power becoming more decentralized due largely to the difficulties of maintaining control of large geographical areas in an age before electricity. I suppose the cycle then would be one of orienting a large portion of a society's resources towards conquest-driven expansion, and continuing on that path until the logistical problems due to technological and economic limitations become unmanageable, and power goes back to being more regional.

The US seems like the most successful version of a widespread empire in modern times, presumably because we're less heavy-handed about it. We have military assets in areas all around the world (the ability to project force on short notice essentially anywhere on the globe is open doctrine), but maintain direct control, in the old sense, of very few of them. Which is probably less because we're so nice than because modern communications and economic tools make it unnecessary, and doing it the old way is extremely resource-intensive (just look at how much trouble trying to conquer and put in place friendly governments in relatively minor countries like Iraq and Afghanistan has been). Our status as a former imperial colony probably does provide some additional ideological antipathy for outright conquest as well.

I mean if you want to read Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire for reasons other than learning more history (like the fact that it did serve as a monumental text for a while - giving you a glimpse into what people were thinking in 18th century Europe), by all means. Given that the work is over 200 years old though you aren't going to glean any valuable insights in either history or historiography that hasn't been improved upon already. Whether it is western Rome's "fall," his open disdain towards Byzantium, or quivering with fear at the rise of Islam, his bias is readily apparent, and if you ever have the opportunity to take an advanced ancient history class most lecturers worth their salt will spend at least part of the course deconstructing Gibbon-isms that have been ingrained as common knowledge.

I think part of the long-term success of both the British Empire, and the US, is that they had/have domestically cultivated economies and systems which could exert their influence without directly using military force (not that either were/are lacking in armies). Also both came about at a time when nationalism was rising hand-in-hand with imperialism - people sometimes forget that the patriotism felt towards a country or state like the UK or US is a relatively recent phenomenon, and one that was almost non-existent during Roman times. People identified with their families, tribes, cultures, residence, or patrician/military benefactors moreso than any nebulous Roman "state."

tangential

Spoiler:

Some good Roman historians to check out would be JE Lendon (UVA) for legal and military history, John Clarke (UT Austin) for art history/archaeology, Ramsay MacMullen (Yale) for religious history, and Lawrence Nees (UDel) has a good textbook for late antique/early medieval art history/archaeology specifically with deconstructing the whole "fall of Rome," thing.

My understanding is that it was called the Dark Ages because the Renaissance Humanists who coined the term (Petrarch in particular, who I think coined the term) wanted to create the impression that they had rescued the world from ignorance.

I think it would be a serious mistake to chalk up the demise of the Western Roman Empire up to any one thing. Political decay arises through a myriad of means. Chalking it up to corruption or wealth inequality seem a little weird to me, given that the Empire was always characterized by corruption and inequality.

Thats the original origin of the name. The Dark Ages designation we know today, is because there are few written records of that age.

The very use of The Dark Ages designation is being questioned these days though. Like people said, it was a "dark age" in European history, but it had little impact on the rest of the world. In the Arab peninsula, it was the Golden age of Islam, which carried on much of the scientific knowledge of the ancient world.

There was a fair amount of writing going on in the "Dark Ages." It was just going on in (literally) cloistered areas and was accessible only to clergy and nobles for a while because nobody else would be able to read and write. Also the golden age of Islam was instrumental, but it wasn't sequestered from Europe - there was transmission and translation of texts by way of Byzantium, and Al-Andalus that worked its way as Latin into Europe. Off the top of my head I'm thinking of Ibn Al Haytham's works on optics which was read and studied by clergy. This was the guy who pioneered the principle of linear perspective, and the camera obscura, which helped advance the use of the camera obscura in Europe during the middle ages, and eventually, Renaissance. Really trying to label early Medieval European history as the "Dark Ages," is a misnomer no matter how you slice it. Sure things would get shitty at times (when doesn't it?), but it wasn't a cultural or intellectual apocalypse like some people try to hype it as. Likewise the Renaissance wasn't an explosive movement of secular and intellectual enlightenment for all.

Also serfdom, feudalism, and castles (!) took on their earliest forms under Diocletian's reforms.

Nothing about the Roman Empire and its fall has nothing to do with our current society. The world we live in is completely different in all levels. Not even their republic was like ours.

Oh hey, someone who doesn't know what they're talking about! We certainly can't glean anything from the fact that Rome relied heavily on a massive military machine that was heterogeneous and fought mostly for money. Also, if I'm recalling correctly, our own military has recently been recruiting larger numbers of hispanic immigrants, who are seeking to serve and then attain citizenship!

Debasement of the currency, over stretching the empire, soldiers tired of their fighting and low pay, a population upset and angry at it's ruling class, all kinds of things were going on. The British Empire fell for a lot of the same reasons.

Fortunately, we don't need to speculate about how things might work. We have a truly massive number of historical examples of societies without a strong police force governed by the rule of law. The result, every single time, has been rampant brutal crime on a massive scale. You don't even have to leave America to find examples. Consider the rise of the mafia in the 1920s, or gang wars in modern LA. When the police stop being a strong well-established power bloc, others step in to fill the void, and unlike a working police force those others have little incentive to do anything other than shake you and your business down for money.

The libertarian solution to this is to reject the idea that having me walk into your business and demand weekly protection dollars is an abuse of your rights. The writer of that PDF even says as much here:

In an empowered society, people do not need written laws; they have the power to determine whether someone is preventing them from fulfilling their needs, and can call on their peers for help resolving conflicts. In this view, the problem is not crime, but social harm—actions such as assault and drunk driving that actually hurt other people. This paradigm does away with the category of victimless crime, and reveals the absurdity of protecting the property rights of privileged people over the survival needs of others.

See, in Libertopia I have a need for your money, so it's okay for me to walk into your business and demand you open up the register. If you don't, I can "call on my peers" (other Corleone triggermen) to come in with guns and burn your business to the ground. Your options at that point are either to call in peers of your own and have a good old-fashioned gang war, or to suck it up and pay the protection fee (which, by the way, rises every week.)

Similarly, there are historical examples of the "volunteer patrols" he discusses in that article. It's called mob justice, and the end result is always lynchings and witch burnings. The rights of the accused seem to disappear rather quickly when you don't have men with guns protecting them.

It's also interesting that he brings up drunk driving, as drunk driving is one of those cases that libertarian justice simply cannot cope with at all. Libertarian society doesn't offer a way to protect against an expected harm. In Libertopia you theoretically aren't able to initiate force to keep drunk drivers off the road because doing so infringes on the rights of all the people who can drive safely while drunk, along with all the unicorns, manticores, leprechauns, and other mythical beasts.

Debasement of the currency, over stretching the empire, soldiers tired of their fighting and low pay, a population upset and angry at it's ruling class, all kinds of things were going on. The British Empire fell for a lot of the same reasons.

That article contains very little explanation for how handling crime might work in an anarchist society; mostly it blames crime on the police, the state, and human nature, and then asserts that in an anarchistic society:

-Crime would be vastly reduced (because cops cause crime, and also because anarchistic states wouldn't have poverty or intractable disputes)
-Crime would be deterred because of patrolling volunteers asking passersby politely not to steal or rape
-What little crime remained would be dealt with in a variety of simple, wholesome ways (like "we forgive you for killing somebody. But if you kill somebody again, it's your family's job to murder you")
-Oh, and if there's still crime, that's still better than the current system, so nyah

The idea that there would be less poverty and fewer intractable conflicts in a system without safety nets or a court/political system is ridiculous.

Oh, and the article also hilariously notes that, although sure, there will still be a few psychopathic killers, the community as a whole can handle him. I pictured a man with an assault rifle gunning down a horde of polite volunteers.

Debasement of the currency, over stretching the empire, soldiers tired of their fighting and low pay, a population upset and angry at it's ruling class, all kinds of things were going on. The British Empire fell for a lot of the same reasons.

Except you'd realize, if you'd bother to read the posts about it in this thread, that Rome didn't fall all at once, and didn't completely disappear either. The main reasons it fell are almost completely irrelevant to the US. Our currency is considered the best in the world, especially since the Euro is failing. We've already discussed why a military coup won't happen. We haven't expanded our borders in 50 years! We could have become an colonial empire back when it was cool if we'd wanted to (by absorbing the Phillippines and Cuba), but we didn't. And the British Empire didn't fall for any of those reasons. It "fell" because it's very difficult to hold onto large swathes of territory while fighting a world war.

What about gangs and bullies?
Some fear that in a society without authorities, the strongest people would run amok, taking and doing whatever they wanted. Never mind that this describes what generally goes on in societies with government! This fear derives from the statist myth that we are all isolated. The government would very much like you to believe that without its protection you are vulnerable to the whims of anyone stronger than you. However, no bully is stronger than an entire community. A person who shatters the social peace, disrespects another person’s needs, and acts in an authoritarian, bullying way can be defeated or kicked out by neighbors working together to restore the peace.

So...without police we'd just band together and do the work police currently do...and this is different because rather than a stricture of legal protections the accursed, and a neutral 3rd party. It's me and my friends/family...

What’s to stop someone from killing people?
Much violent crime can be traced back to cultural factors. Violent crime, such as murder, would probably decrease dramatically in an anarchist society because most of its causes—poverty, televised glorification of violence, prisons and police, warfare, sexism, and the normalization of individualistic and anti-social behaviors—would disappear or decrease.

The differences between two Zapotec communities illustrates that peace is a choice. The Zapotec are a sedentary agrarian indigenous nation living on land that is now claimed by the state of Mexico. One Zapotec community, La Paz, has a yearly homicide rate of 3.4/100,000. A neighboring Zapotec community has the much higher homicide rate of 18.1/100,000. What social attributes go along with the more peaceful way of life? Unlike their more violent neighbors, the La Paz Zapotec do not beat children; accordingly, children see less violence and use less violence in their play. Similarly, wife-beating is rare and not considered acceptable; women are considered equal to men, and enjoy an autonomous economic activity that is important to the life of the community so they are not dependent on men. Regarding child-rearing, the implications of this particular comparison are corroborated by at least one cross-cultural study on socialization, which found that warm, affectionate socialization techniques correlate with low levels of conflict in society.

The Semai and the Norwegians were both previously mentioned as societies with low homicide rates. Until colonialism, the Semai were stateless, whereas Norway is ruled by a government. Socialization is relatively peaceful among the Semai and the Norwegians alike. The Semai use a gift economy so wealth is evenly distributed, while Norway has one of the lowest wealth gaps of any capitalist country on account of its socialistic domestic policies.

A further similarity is a reliance on mediation rather than punishment, police, or prisons to solve disputes. Norway does have police and a prison system, but compared with most states there is a high reliance on conflict mediation mechanisms not unlike those that flourish in peaceful, stateless societies. Most civil disputes in Norway must be brought before mediators before they can be taken to court, and thousands of criminal cases are taken to mediators as well. In 2001, agreement was reached in 89% of the mediations.
So in an anarchist society, violent crime would be less common. But when it did occur, would society be more vulnerable? After all, one might argue, even when violence is no longer a rational social response, psychopathic killers might still occasionally appear. Let it suffice to say that any society capable of overthrowing a government would hardly be at the mercy of lone psychopathic killers. And societies that do not come about from a revolution but enjoy a strong sense of community and solidarity are capable of protecting themselves as well. The Inuit, hunter-gatherers indigenous to the arctic regions of North America, provide an example of what a stateless society can do in the worst-case scenario. According to their traditions, if a person committed a murder, the community would forgive him and make him reconcile with the family of the victim. If that person commits another murder, he would be killed—usually by members of his own family group, so there would be no bad blood or cause for feud.

Well leaving aside the completely irrelevant comparison of 2 native american communities...
I don't think the author actually understands how courts work. Taking civil cases before a mediator(or arbitrator), is something that has 0 implication in criminal matters. And is a system that is in fact used in the US.
And he also provides no support for his conclusion.

This entire section reads like this:
In an anarchist society violent crime would be decrease because it's causes would disappear
here are two native american societies, one doesn't beat its wives/children it has lower crime
Norway uses government arbitrators for most civil cases
Therefore, in an anarchist society violent crime would be less common.

IT MAKES NO LOGICAL SENSE.

I do like the reference to the 'traditions' of the Inuits though. After all it's not like the European conquest of NA is littered with people willing to trade goods, like say for instance furs, for weapons to go kill that jack ass from the other tribe. Ohh wait, it is.

And here is the HOLY SHIT moment of the entire piece.

The history of Exarchia, a neighborhood in central Athens, shows throughout the years that the police do not protect us, they endanger us. For years, Exarchia has been the stronghold of the anarchist movement and the counterculture. The neighborhood has protected itself from gentrification and policing through a variety of means. Luxury cars are regularly burned if they are parked there overnight. After being targeted with property destruction and social pressure, shop and restaurant owners no longer try to remove political posters from their walls, kick out vagrants, or otherwise create a commercial atmosphere in the streets; they have conceded that the streets belong to the people. Undercover cops who enter Exarchia have been brutally beaten on a number of occasions. During the run-up to the Olympics the city tried to renovate Exarchia Square to turn it into a tourist spot rather than a local hangout. The new plan, for example, included a large fountain and no benches. Neighbors began meeting, came up with their own renovation plan, and informed the construction company that they would use the local plan rather than the city government’s plan. Repeated destruction of the construction equipment finally convinced the company who was boss. The renovated park today has more green space, no touristy fountain, and nice, new benches.

Honestly do you even read this shit you post? It's perfectly great place to live, unless you don't want your car burned, or your shop vandalized, or your construction equipment destroy. See as long as you obey the whims of whoevers walking by, its a perfectly great place. And this is your coercion free society utopia?

This entire philosophy is stupid. Like you would have to be ignorant or naive beyond qualification to buy into it.

Not only is it's solution to real current problems consist of the same 4 basic parts:
1) When there is no longer a central government people will stop being racist/sexist/violent/greedy/every other bad adjective
2) Because of 1 people will become exceptional altruistic(Hilarious considering the constant bitching about having to pay taxes), to take care of the needy. Something which they aren't prevented from doing now, in any way.
3) The community(whatever that is) will justly and equally apply the law(set by no-one?) to members living within it, in a way that is respectful of it members rights. Despite near innumerable examples of this not happening. like the study @rayofash himself linked earlier.
4) No community will organize itself in such a way that it can militarily consolidate other communities into it. Ever.

If your solution is constantly "well, that won't happen cause people won't do that", you have some giant fucking holes to fill.

It really requires a near total ignorance of the entirety of human history to buy into.

When I was readying that, I couldn't help but think of the show Doomsday Preppers. It's a documentary show on Nat-Geo where they do interviews with people who are hoarding supplies to prepare for an EMP Pulse/Oil Crisis/Pandemic/etc that collapses the US. The reason it kept coming to mind is that those people, the people who are stocking up on MRE's, water, and guns in preparation for a catastrophic event that collapses the government, are actually less crazy than the author of the pdf. Because they at least understand that the consequences of a government vacume would be extreme lawlessness and societal breakdown.

In order to ascribe to this philosophy you have to be less grounded in reality, than people building underground bunkers out off buried school buses. Because to ascribe to it you have to believe that, should there no longer be a government, the likely outcome is a complete and universal change in the nature of human behavior rather than it turning out like every place currently and in history that has lacked a strong government.

I mean we might as well rename it 5ism, because you'd need to believe 2+2=5 to buy into it.

The history of Exarchia, a neighborhood in central Athens, shows throughout the years that the police do not protect us, they endanger us. For years, Exarchia has been the stronghold of the anarchist movement and the counterculture. The neighborhood has protected itself from gentrification and policing through a variety of means. Luxury cars are regularly burned if they are parked there overnight. After being targeted with property destruction and social pressure, shop and restaurant owners no longer try to remove political posters from their walls, kick out vagrants, or otherwise create a commercial atmosphere in the streets; they have conceded that the streets belong to the people. Undercover cops who enter Exarchia have been brutally beaten on a number of occasions. During the run-up to the Olympics the city tried to renovate Exarchia Square to turn it into a tourist spot rather than a local hangout. The new plan, for example, included a large fountain and no benches. Neighbors began meeting, came up with their own renovation plan, and informed the construction company that they would use the local plan rather than the city government’s plan. Repeated destruction of the construction equipment finally convinced the company who was boss. The renovated park today has more green space, no touristy fountain, and nice, new benches.

Honestly do you even read this shit you post? It's perfectly great place to live, unless you don't want your car burned, or your shop vandalized, or your construction equipment destroy. See as long as you obey the whims of whoevers walking by, its a perfectly great place. And this is your coercion free society utopia?

No, no. You see, it's ok to not respect the property rights of other people when you don't like them. After all, who are they going to go to? The community?

It's also interesting that he brings up drunk driving, as drunk driving is one of those cases that libertarian justice simply cannot cope with at all. Libertarian society doesn't offer a way to protect against an expected harm. In Libertopia you theoretically aren't able to initiate force to keep drunk drivers off the road because doing so infringes on the rights of all the people who can drive safely while drunk, along with all the unicorns, manticores, leprechauns, and other mythical beasts.

Why is this thread so full of awesome? Why can't we sprinkle awesome around a bit more rather than just concentrating it here?

It's also interesting that he brings up drunk driving, as drunk driving is one of those cases that libertarian justice simply cannot cope with at all. Libertarian society doesn't offer a way to protect against an expected harm. In Libertopia you theoretically aren't able to initiate force to keep drunk drivers off the road because doing so infringes on the rights of all the people who can drive safely while drunk, along with all the unicorns, manticores, leprechauns, and other mythical beasts.

Finally, a conversation worth having. The notion that we can't support more people is ludicrous. I don't have the numbers on hand, but if you look at the Green Revolution, which was billed as the way we would feed the world's poor, you'll notice something interesting. While we were able to feed more people, percentage-wise, more people are going hungry.

We could, without any doubt, feed the entire world's population right now without blinking an eye. The reality is, a lot of that food is sitting in warehouses right now, waiting to be shipped and sold in the supermarkets of the first world.

Or being thrown away by said supermarkets because it didn't sell in time. If, instead of having tribalist microgovernments, we had a single, monolithic world government that gave a shit about its citizens we could be putting that spare food in the mouths of starving kids all over the world. But the first world can't even feed its own starving populations due to administrative costs and a lack of enough people giving a shit, which is both a shame and direct (I'd think) proof that all of the "people are basically good! they'll be caring and compassionate if Government gets out of the way and lets them!" hand-waving at the start of this thread was BS.

True. I was listening to NPR some time ago and there was some professor who was talking about use of space. If everyone on earth lived like New Yorkers, the entire world population could fit in the state of Texas. How many Texas-sized land chunks are in the world? A lot.

[
Honestly do you even read this shit you post? It's perfectly great place to live, unless you don't want your car burned, or your shop vandalized, or your construction equipment destroy. See as long as you obey the whims of whoevers walking by, its a perfectly great place. And this is your coercion free society utopia?

It's foolprood logic, don't you see? Cops cause crime!

For example, if you don't criminalize rape, I'll guarantee you that rape-related arrests and convictions will drop by a staggering 100%! There! Crime problem solved, you're welcome humanity! Do I get some kind of libertarian nobel prize?

Finally, a conversation worth having. The notion that we can't support more people is ludicrous. I don't have the numbers on hand, but if you look at the Green Revolution, which was billed as the way we would feed the world's poor, you'll notice something interesting. While we were able to feed more people, percentage-wise, more people are going hungry.

We could, without any doubt, feed the entire world's population right now without blinking an eye. The reality is, a lot of that food is sitting in warehouses right now, waiting to be shipped and sold in the supermarkets of the first world.

Or being thrown away by said supermarkets because it didn't sell in time. If, instead of having tribalist microgovernments, we had a single, monolithic world government that gave a shit about its citizens we could be putting that spare food in the mouths of starving kids all over the world. But the first world can't even feed its own starving populations due to administrative costs and a lack of enough people giving a shit, which is both a shame and direct (I'd think) proof that all of the "people are basically good! they'll be caring and compassionate if Government gets out of the way and lets them!" hand-waving at the start of this thread was BS.

True. I was listening to NPR some time ago and there was some professor who was talking about use of space. If everyone on earth lived like New Yorkers, the entire world population could fit in the state of Texas. How many Texas-sized land chunks are in the world? A lot.

That sounds so ridiculous that I would imagine that there might be some truth to it. People generally think of Manhattan first, and it's the most densely populated ~69k people per square mile. Texas is ~268k square miles, which means you could fit 18 billion people if they lived in a similar fashion to New York.

mah gawhd

Spoiler:

Of course some people literally live in spaces smaller than some garages or closets in Texas, and living on top of people constantly is its own little hell in some ways...

What about gangs and bullies?
Some fear that in a society without authorities, the strongest people would run amok, taking and doing whatever they wanted. Never mind that this describes what generally goes on in societies with government! This fear derives from the statist myth that we are all isolated. The government would very much like you to believe that without its protection you are vulnerable to the whims of anyone stronger than you. However, no bully is stronger than an entire community. A person who shatters the social peace, disrespects another person’s needs, and acts in an authoritarian, bullying way can be defeated or kicked out by neighbors working together to restore the peace.

So...without police we'd just band together and do the work police currently do...and this is different because rather than a stricture of legal protections the accursed, and a neutral 3rd party. It's me and my friends/family...

So what happens when the perps friends/family get in on the act? Why should they take the word of a total stranger that they need to kill cousin Billy? Why should they trust the subjective word of a stranger over the equally subjective word of their own man? And if your family kills cousin Billy wouldn't his family be entitled to retaliate against yours?

Wouldn't that lead to Feuds and Vendettas, the likes of which we have seen in a myriad of societies where there was little to no police enforcement?

This has to be RayofAsh's worst suggestion yet. Returning us to the days of Hattfields and Mccoys and calling it progress.

I just realized that Rayofash's atittude is just faith.
He has found these dogmas, and he has faith on them. The whole thing is built upon a religious structure of thought and belief.

Now see that's just ridiculous, Libertarianism is founded upon a realistic structure of reason and facts.

Spoiler:

Something I've always thought is hilarious is that libertarian thought is completely reliant of an optimistic outlook on the nature of man - as in, all men are inherently good, thus if allowed to act freely they will automatically congregate into collectively doing good things for eachother. Meanwhile, most social liberals (like say, me for example) would argue that at the very least not all men are inclined to act "good" towards their fellow men, thus there needs to be a central power structure to guarantee the safety and happiness of all men - and some people from the most extreme schools of libertarian thought would call this unreasonable, unnatural or unrealistic!

Now, looking at it from where I stand, that just tickles the fucking piss out of me.

True. I was listening to NPR some time ago and there was some professor who was talking about use of space. If everyone on earth lived like New Yorkers, the entire world population could fit in the state of Texas. How many Texas-sized land chunks are in the world? A lot.

Something I've always thought is hilarious is that libertarian thought is completely reliant of an optimistic outlook on the nature of man - as in, all men are inherently good, thus if allowed to act freely they will automatically congregate into collectively doing good things for eachother. Meanwhile, most social liberals (like say, me for example) would argue that at the very least not all men are inclined to act "good" towards their fellow men, thus there needs to be a central power structure to guarantee the safety and happiness of all men - and some people from the most extreme schools of libertarian thought would call this unreasonable, unnatural or unrealistic!

There are two types of libertarians.

The first type believes that if all social structures, welfare systems and military were abolished, the people would rally together and create something better on voluntary terms. A part-time volunteer militia would be better than a professional military, charities would be better than welfare, and community social pressure would be better than police. These guys are wrong, but nice. Rayofash appears to be one of this type of libertarian.

The second type of libertarian is more realistic. They understand that removal of all social structures would lead to a dog-eat-dog world, where the great and powerful few utterly dominate the poor and the weak masses (i.e. us). And they don't care - they see this as the natural order of things. These people are scary.

Something I've always thought is hilarious is that libertarian thought is completely reliant of an optimistic outlook on the nature of man - as in, all men are inherently good, thus if allowed to act freely they will automatically congregate into collectively doing good things for eachother. Meanwhile, most social liberals (like say, me for example) would argue that at the very least not all men are inclined to act "good" towards their fellow men, thus there needs to be a central power structure to guarantee the safety and happiness of all men - and some people from the most extreme schools of libertarian thought would call this unreasonable, unnatural or unrealistic!

There are two types of libertarians.

The first type believes that if all social structures, welfare systems and military were abolished, the people would rally together and create something better on voluntary terms. A part-time volunteer militia would be better than a professional military, charities would be better than welfare, and community social pressure would be better than police. These guys are wrong, but nice. Rayofash appears to be one of this type of libertarian.

The second type of libertarian is more realistic. They understand that removal of all social structures would lead to a dog-eat-dog world, where the great and powerful few utterly dominate the poor and the weak masses (i.e. us). And they don't care - they see this as the natural order of things. These people are scary.

I like to think that the first type just tends to be young and either hasn't read a lot of history or simply wants to cling to the idea that humanity is better than the history books show. One of the hardest parts of growing up is understanding how much actual people have had to go through to give us all the things we take for granted. They look at a world where peaceful solutions and honest contracts are the norm, where the water is clean and large groups of armed soldiers serve you instead of extorting you, and assume that that's the natural order. That humans will naturally regulate to that point, if only evil government would stop messing it all up.

I can see why someone would want to believe that. I'm somewhat less sympathetic when they cling to that belief in the face of mountains of hard evidence to the contrary. Libertarianism really is a faith-based ideology, except it's faith in a perfect humanity instead of a perfect deity. To hold it, you have to look at the world through glasses so rose-colored they're opaque.

eh, if you're going to use that kind of language there's just as many ways in which democracy is 'faith based.'

It's proven to work in practice in the modern world. People who call themselves "conservatives" should respect that, instead of proposing wildly radical solutions with blindingly obvious flaws. It really does remind me of communism. Did we really need to try communism to figure out it was as horrible in practice as it looked in theory? It is fortunate for the world that America didn't go communist; why throw it all away for another wild and crazy utopian vision which would most likely cripple the country as communism crippled Russia?

0·

AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular

What about gangs and bullies?
Some fear that in a society without authorities, the strongest people would run amok, taking and doing whatever they wanted. Never mind that this describes what generally goes on in societies with government! This fear derives from the statist myth that we are all isolated. The government would very much like you to believe that without its protection you are vulnerable to the whims of anyone stronger than you. However, no bully is stronger than an entire community. A person who shatters the social peace, disrespects another person’s needs, and acts in an authoritarian, bullying way can be defeated or kicked out by neighbors working together to restore the peace.

So...without police we'd just band together and do the work police currently do...and this is different because rather than a stricture of legal protections the accursed, and a neutral 3rd party. It's me and my friends/family...

You know what's one of the most prevalent examples of "neighbors working together to restore the peace" in American history?

Lynchings.

Seriously, the Jim Crow South was all about this whole "the community bands together to enforce social order and keep the peace" concept, only the folks that "shattered the social peace" were those uppity black folks who dared look at white ladies or violate social norms in any of a thousand arbitrary ways, and "restoring the peace" meant the community banded together to brutally torture and murder said black folks in a big public celebration.